Captdon (03-14-2018)
The problem with Republicans, especially the establishment Republicans, is they for so long were on the losing end of the stick to Democrats that they learned to give in, and still do out of habit. The Tea Parties tried to oust them. Hell, Contract with America tried. Now Trump is upsetting the apple cart.
Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler
The confusion inevitably arises because many of the folks who call and consider themselves to be conservatives are, in fact, not conservatives at all. (And yes, the same is true of many of those who self-identify as liberals.)
And regardless of how much of a bedrock conservative someone believes themselves to be, there will always be another guy who will, when they discover that you believe or advocate this thing or the other, proclaim that you're not a conservative at all.
In general terms, though, the difference between what conservatives and liberals consider to be "fair game" for federal intrusion (and what should be considered "hands off") lies in which area of life the thing exists in. We've heard it described as the "boardroom vs. bedroom" distinction. Liberals, generally speaking, don't like the federal (or really, any) government putting restrictions on what individuals choose to do with their own bodies, particularly when it doesn't directly affect others, while conservatives tend to see as an unwarranted intrusion any attempt to govern or restrict the conduct of business.
“Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.” - Robert E. Howard
"Only a rank degenerate would drive 1,500 miles across Texas and not eat a chicken fried steak." - Larry McMurtry
One, you seem so overly concerned about labels and unconcerned about what they label.
Two, you point out what I think is a major difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives vary widely, you can see all sorts of disagreement here among them. Liberals, otoh, seem to be lockstep and rarely disagree amongst themselves.
Three, yes, yes, there's difference between liberals who are socially liberal and conservatives who arre economically liiberal and, even, further, ibertarians who are liberal on both scores--classically so, in the sense cof leaving people alone. The topic here, however, is economics, where, generally, conservatives want to be left alone and liberals want central planning to achieve social agenda--which means, since they use the government to enforce social "freedom" they really aren't liberal on that score, now are they. Equality and liberty are two different things and at odds with each other.
Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler
That's a rather obvious instance of someone criticizing the poster instead of addressing the topic at hand, but...whatever.
A ridiculous, partisan assessment on its face. "Lockstep"? I believe one can maybe count on the fingers of one hand the things that liberals agree on. Often the "liberal" world seems to consist of dozens of special interest groups, each with its own focus, which only at times go along with one another if it suits their purpose. And yes, conservatives "vary widely", too - but you'll notice that when they do, they are inevitably dismissed and vilified as not being conservatives at all. How many long time, nationally known conservative leaders have, as an example, been so judged by Trump supporters?
When one looks at not only the history but the current positions of each "side", there is plenty of inconsistency, if not outright hypocrisy, to go around. It would seem, just as one small example, to be a classically conservative view that a privately owned company should be responsible for operating without harming the environment or the people who live in it, and for cleaning up its own messes and paying for its mistakes. Yet the agenda of most "conservative" politicians, even pre-Trump, has nearly always been to indemnify, forgive or simply ignore such considerations, or to make the taxpayers pay for the corporations' sins and omissions. Those taking an opposing view are inevitably labeled "anti-business".
Outside the realm of economics, the hypocrisy on both sides, but especially on the Right, is even more blatant, of course.
“Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.” - Robert E. Howard
"Only a rank degenerate would drive 1,500 miles across Texas and not eat a chicken fried steak." - Larry McMurtry
I criticized what you posted. It's only natural to assume you are behind what you post. Note: Again avoids the topic.
Instead of talking about all those disagreements, why not show some?
Many of the nationally known conservatives, George Will, for example, disagree with Trump's progressive protectionism, and they catch hell for it.
"classically conservative view"? The conservative movement started in the 1950's with Buckley, Kirk, and the New Conservatives. Classical? There is classical liberalism, of Hobbes, Locke, to name two. But classical conservatism? Where do you all liberals come up with this stuff. There's history, and there's the modern liberal immagination that denies socialism and invents classical conservatism
As for conservatives, nay, Republicans acting like liberals, see earlier reply on that. Generally, Republicans take a pro-business stance, Democrats an anti-business one--conservatives a pro-market stance, liberals pro-government--see conservative Jonah Goldberg's criticism of Republicans in Pro-Business or Pro-Market.
So let's not again confuse Republicans with conservatives.
When you say, "Outside the realm of economics, the hypocrisy on both sides, but especially on the Right, is even more blatant, of course," are you speaking of Republicans or conservatives?
But what say you about the successes of capitalism vs the failures of socialism? You, know, the topic.
Last edited by Chris; 03-13-2018 at 02:41 PM.
Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler
Thanks for that Chris - that's typically fair of you. But just out of interest, what did you disagree with? I wasn't being political - I was just pointing to facts that I think I know.
Like the Scandinavian countries have better systems and a better lifestyle than either the UK or the USA - no matter if you want to call them socialist or capitalist. I know those names are just convenient boxes to put people and societies in, but they also carry lots of other baggage. And we all have our social problems, but none of the Scandinavian countries, nor places like Germany, are third world countries, and the world is keen to buy the goods they produce.
And the reasons for poverty are not just laziness - I gave examples of other causes (and there are loads more I don't know about). So which things did you think were wrong? I'm not just trying to be right - I'm genuinely interested.
Oh, I wish I were a glow worm,
for a glow worm's never glum,
'cause how can you be grumpy
when the sun shines out your bum!
Well, I think capdon was being hard on the poor and you soft and that probably gets him frowns and you smiles, but as I read it I thought--did I post it?--that how one feels about the poor really matter not a bit, other than perhaps motivating a passion to solve poverty--which takes us back to the topic, that howeverso much sopcialism seems to be compassionate for the poor, it's uncompassionate capitalism that raises them at least meterially out of poverty, vis-à-vis the OP chart.
Poverty, to me, is man's natural state and motivator to act to feed, clothe, and shelter oneself at least.
Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler
I think I understand what you mean, but I don't think it is any economic system that lifts people out of poverty. I think it is development - both scientific and engineering - which has historically lifted all first world societies out of both ignorance and poverty. It is not who develops a cure for cancer - whether that be a privately owned research institute or a publicly owned, government institute - that matters; it is the cure which is the advance. And that advance can come from either private or public ownership of the means.
Dunno about poverty, but I think that is true in that survival is the strongest motivator. So I think we agree there.
Oh, I wish I were a glow worm,
for a glow worm's never glum,
'cause how can you be grumpy
when the sun shines out your bum!